What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287840?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joanne Kopura and John Stills at 108 Douglas Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5287840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287840?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12097889-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287840?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joanne Kopura and John Stills at 108 Douglas Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5287840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287840?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12097889-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

108 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287840 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Joanne Kopura and John Stills at 108 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely. The application had been adjourned in order that Ms Kopura could receive copies of the documents which she confirmed she had.
A representative of Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing as did Ms Kopura. Mr Stills could not be contacted on the number provided and Ms Kopura said they only had the one phone between them. The victim of the alleged assault and his partner also gave oral evidence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See s.40(2)( c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA”). In addition they seek to terminate the tenancy on the basis of assault. See. S.55(1)( c) RTA
Mr John Stills and Ms Joanne Kopura reside in a 3-bedroom stand-alone property with their 18-year-old son. Their tenancy commenced on 9 November 2006.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. KO Submission and Evidence
On Wednesday 2 April 2025, Mr Stills and Ms Kopura had family members visiting them. They were in the kitchen drinking and playing music. The drinking and music continued into the early hours of Thursday, 3 April. Ms Kopura told KO that she heard a “thump” like sound hitting the side of their house and she looked out the window to see what it was.
She saw their next-door neighbour, from 106 Douglas Street, standing outside. He told her their drinking and partying had woken his children up. The neighbour and his partner privately rent the house next door at 106 Douglas Street and have 2 young children, one a young baby and the other a small toddler who was woken by the noise.
Mr Stills and Ms Kopura told KO they went next door to apologise to them. Mr Stills nephew also went to the property and pushed past them both and entered the property at 106 Douglas Street. A scuffle followed and then the nephew smashed the front window causing injuries to himself and requiring medical attention.
The male neighbour was assaulted by Mr Stills. The Police were called and attended the incident. Police advised KO that Mr Stills and Ms Kopura were both highly intoxicated, argumentative and non- cooperative when they arrived and stated they were concerned at how intoxicated they were and that they didn’t seem to understand the severity of the incident.
Mr Stills was arrested and is facing charges of intent to injure/reckless disregard and other charges. His bail conditions state that he cannot return to 108 Douglas Street.
Mr Stills and Ms Kopura were also served trespass notices and Mr Stills nephew is being charged for wilful damage.
KO also reached out to the private owner, now landlord, of 106 Douglas Street. She stated Mr Stills and Ms Kopura party mid-week from the afternoons until the following mornings with loud music and singing. She said the bedrooms at her property were next to the area where they drank. She stated that she recently moved out of her home and her tenants have only been renting it for a short time. Evidence of Mr P (the neighbour of 106 Douglas Street)
Mr P gave a statement to KO of his version of events on the morning of 3 April 2025 as follows: Approx 2:30am 03/04/25 Thursday morning I woke to my one and a half year old daughter crying, I went to lie her down and heard loud music and yelling even though my daughters windows were closed I noticed the neighbours had there windows wide open in the kitchen were they were drinking. I then opened my daughter’s windows and yelled out to them to turn their music down as it had just woken my toddler. They then started swearing and muttering at the window and I realised they were very intoxicated and not making much sense so I shut the window as the music had stopped. About one minute later there was a progression of knocking at the front door so I asked my partner to come with me to tell them to go away as I didn’t really want to engage with them at this point. Once opening the door it was the two tenants initially John and his partner Joanne and they were saying why didn’t we come over and tell them to turn it down and I replied what the heck are you on about it’s 2:30 on a weekday we shouldn’t have to tell you to turn it down now get off our property! The man John then started to tell me to come out side my door for a fight and then there was a group of three females and another male standing in the darkness behind the two tenants and then my partner raised her voice and told him not to threaten me and that’s when their nephew came charging around the corner pushing past my partner and into our hallway and John also pushed past my partner and both the males were trying to hold my neck and shoulder and punching me in the head, while John’s partner and another female were pushing my partner inside our hallway, At this time my one year old came out of her room and started yelling and I managed to push everyone outside the front door and lock it. Then approximately two-three seconds after locking the group outside I heard our two front room panels break. The group then decided to stand outside our house laughing and swearing and when we said police were coming they called us all shit. Then when the police came John’s partner Joanne was still being antagonistic out front and trying to justify their actions by saying that because we opened the door we allowed for us to get assaulted.
Mr P provided a further statement: Elaborating further on my statement to you regarding the incident on the 3rd of April: Because it happened so fast and both John and his nephew were holding me and punching me I would say they both punched me three times each while holding me on the arm and neck with their other free hands. I also received bruising that I attached to this email (let me know if it doesn’t show). I didn’t feel concussed after the incident so I didnt feel a need to follow up medical treatment but I had a large swelling on the side of my head for about 5-7 days after the incident happened.
Mr P also gave oral evidence outlining the events of 3 April and this was totally consistent with his statement. He said at no time did he go outside the house and throw anything at the neighbour’s house, just called out the window as he was trying to comfort his child who had been woken by the noise.
The Tribunal has been provided with photographs taken on 6 April of the bruising Mr P sustained as a result of the assaults.
Mr P’s partner also provided a statement to KO reading the events of 3 April:
On Thursday 3rd of April at around 2.15-2.30am my one year old daughter had woken us up crying, my partner put her to bed and I heard that the neighbours were still partying with their loud music, yelling and going on that my daughter could not sleep. My partner had opened my daughter’s room window to tell the neighbours to keep it down as they woke up our daughter. As I was in bed I did not want to get up because I had a newborn baby and I was waking up to him every 3- 4hours to feed him. But I heard the neighbours shouting at my partner and verbally abusing him, swearing and telling him to come outside. I then heard banging on our door which I got out of bed to answer it and Joanne and John were on our doorstep, they were both talking over top of each other, John was yelling and saying to my partner to come outside and fight him. I told them to get off our property, then one of their family members that was hiding on the side of our house forced me out of the way by pushing me to get to my partner who was behind me in our hall way to abuse him punching and yelling at him, then John came in to hold my partner to the wall and punched him multiple times to the head and face, and also Joanne and a few other family members entered our house to push us around yelling and abusing us which was very frightening, our one year old daughter came out from her room screaming which I then grabbed her and my newborn son took them to the end bedroom where I called the police. My partner had then got them out of the house and straight after that we heard our windows smashed in the front room. After that we locked the rest of the house and could still hear the group of them out the front of our house talking and when the police arrived Joanne was still being loud outside and saying “it was our fault, we opened the door”. Eventually the police took John and the nephew away.
Ms M gave oral evidence outlining the events of 3 April and this was consistent with the written statement she had provided to KO. Mr P and Ms M gave evidence that they were traumatised by this home invasion and continued to be, to do this day. They were scared also for their young family and just wanted to live a quite life with their family. Ms M had started her camera rolling when the event started and a video clip was provided to the Tribunal. It was very short but involved a lot of yelling and a scuffle taking place. Ms M said however that when her child came out of the bedroom screaming she grabbed her and her new born baby and hid in the bedroom stopping the camera rolling. Ms Kopura’s evidence
Ms Kopura said that on that evening around 2.30am she had heard a few loud thumps on the side of her house and Mr P was seen standing outside. She said she understood the position of the neighbours as the music was loud and it was 2.30am. She said she went over to their house and asked them why they hadn’t just come over to tell them to quieten down and asked them to come over. She said it was just her then she was followed by Mr Stills. Unbeknownst to them their nephew had also followed and he pushed past them into the hallway. She said he is a big man and she and Mr Stills were just trying to pull him away and in the process they fell over maybe bumping into the neighbour.
She said no-one assaulted Mr P and she had no intention of harming anyone and there was no scuffle. The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – ... (c) the tenant has caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part.... (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
Section 40 (2)(c) RTA provides: that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach.
Section 40 (2)(c) RTA provides: A tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. Analysis
I have carefully weighed the evidence given by Mr P, Ms M and Ms Kopura of the events of the morning of 3 April. The oral evidence given by Mr P and Ms M was consistent with their earlier statements given to KO. I have also taken into account the photographs of the bruising and the short video clip. While the video did not show the actual assault, there was a a large scuffle a lot of screaming and yelling. Taking all factors into account I accept thew version of events outlined by Mr P and Ms M and find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Sills did assault Mr P on 3 April 2025.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) are established.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
I regard the assault that took place as extremely serious and the whole event is likened to a home invasion. It was unprovoked and it has had and continues to have, a significant impact on Mr P and Ms M. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Stills will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future. There is an ongoing risk to the neighbours and negative impact to the community should the tenancy not be terminated.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
The Tribunal can also be satisfied that the tenants have breached the obligation under Section 40(2) (c) not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the neighbours and that the breach of this obligation is not capable of remedy and provides grounds to terminate the tenancy under Section 56.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287840 — 14-day notice at 108 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287840 — 14-day notice at 108 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions